• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

US and British troops march on Moscow's Red Square

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
9
0
http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/gallery/Victory-Day-military-parade-in-Moscow/3290/

Victory Day military parade in Moscow
MOSCOW, May 9 (UPI) -- Soldiers from four NATO countries marched for the first time in Russia's annual Victory Day parade marking the victory in World War II, observers said.

Troops from Britain, France, Poland and the United States marched alongside 10,000 Russian forces while about two dozen world leaders attended the 65th anniversary, the BBC reported Sunday. The parade also featured tanks, ballistic missiles and a fly-over of 127 aircraft.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told spectators lessons from World War II "urge us to show solidarity."

"Peace is still fragile and it is our duty to remember that wars do not start in an instant," Medvedev said. "It is only together that we shall be able to counter modern threats."

Victory Day parades involving more than 102,000 service personnel and more than 200,000 veterans were conducted in 36 Russian cities, Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported.

Medvedev said the march on the Red Square "symbolizes our readiness to defend peace, to prevent the revision of the results of the war, to prevent new tragedies."
This is the first time? Really? Wow. Anyways, I have no doubt this isn't in part thanks to the efforts of the nuclear treaty signed just a few weeks ago.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Yeah I was reading about that the other day. While I certainly believe that western sources don't really give the USSR enough credit with regards to defeating Germany, it seems that many Russians are homers as well and feel they could have won without any help from the other Allies.

The truth of course is somewhere in the middle, it was a "team" win and should be celebrated as such.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
19,412
2,259
126
The truth of course is somewhere in the middle, it was a "team" win and should be celebrated as such.
Agreed. The war would have been hard to win without the team. It might have been possible but it certainly would have gone on for much much longer
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,258
11,681
136
Yeah I was reading about that the other day. While I certainly believe that western sources don't really give the USSR enough credit with regards to defeating Germany, it seems that many Russians are homers as well and feel they could have won without any help from the other Allies.

The truth of course is somewhere in the middle, it was a "team" win and should be celebrated as such.
Well the sacrifice of Russian lives is definitely more covered than the importance of Lend Lease materiel/food which the Soviets could never admit was the primary reason they could mount their massive offensives.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,480
3,591
126
It actually wasn't the first time for at least a couple of the Nations. There was a similar Victory Parade with the US and Britain(I believe) back in 1946, just after the War.

What was certainly a First was that the German Chancellor was in attendance as a Guest at the ceremony.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Of all the allied nations in WW2, it can be argued that Russian ended up catching the most damage and civilian causalities. Something on the order of 50 million Russian died at German hands. And while the Russian government, by only a thin hair, escaped the French Fate of surrender and total defeat, the battles of Stalingrad and Moscow were damn near won by the Nazi's, for two summer offensives in a row. And would have been won if Stalin had not sent human waves of ill trained and equipped forces to counter the Nazis. Tragically, those Russian troops had a mean life expectancy of less than 24 hours, once they entered combat.

And to a certain extent, we must enter the master race twisted mind of Hitler, who pegged the entire Slavic race as a sub-human healot race, good for little else than slavery or death. Maybe a hair better than Jews, homosexuals, and Gypsies, but on a human scale far far lower than the French or English, whom Hitler always hoped might join his cause.

Meanwhile Stalin was begging the USA and England to open up offensives against the Nazis, to pull troops Nazi away from the Soviet Union, and got no real help in that area.

Certainly the mainly USA supplied convoys to Murmansk that partly saved the Russian goose from being cooked, but it was Churchill, who refused to share any US or British air power technology designs with Stalin or Russia, leaving Russia without any air power until long after WW2. But what really saved the Russian Butt was a US copied tank design, can't remember the exact T designation, maybe T-6, but when they came on line in significant numbers, in early 1944, it was game over Nazi's on the Eastern front.

And the Russian road to the Berlin started and became a Juggernaut. Meanwhile, the the USA had their D-day landings in the West, their tanks were decidedly inferior to Nazi tanks, but their air power more than made up the difference. And in May of 1945, Nazi Germany surrendered, caught in a two front war they could not win.

Sadly, the final peace in Europe did not result in any peace dividend, many blame Stalin for started that post WW2 cold war, some blame Churchill, but we still got that cold war that dominated events until 1990. When that vicious to the the US military industrial peace monger Gorbachev ended the Russian ambitions to win the cold war, and instead
waved that white flag of surrender. Whoopie for the USA we won. Or wait did we win?

Because, post 1990, the Russians cashed their peace dividend, and now longer spend all their bucks for guns now instead goes for the butter. Their economy is doing rather well now, but can we say the USA is doing as well because we still spend our bucks for even more guns. Who skinned who on the deal?

But yea, for the first time in history, post WW2, the Russians celebrate the former Western & Russian alliances of WW2. With a big parade in Moscow.

And maybe we need to ask another question, if the Nazi's had defeated Russian during WW2, and as a result that second front had not split the Nazi's defenses, could the West have won WW2?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,258
11,681
136
Stalin screwed the US and the UK (not to mention the individual countries) on Eastern Europe. Churchill just suspected it first and Roosevelt was too near death to comprehend it. Had Truman and Churchill known what was really going on near the end of the war they would have crossed the Elbe in force and met the Soviets as far east as possible regardless of our worthless agreement with the them.

As far as what would have happened if the Soviets folded...the US still would have obtained the atomic bomb in 1945. Game over Axis.
 
Last edited:

Blintok

Senior member
Jan 30, 2007
433
0
0
Forgotten is the fact that Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were allies during the (almost) first 2years of the war. (Aug 1939 to June 1941) The Russians invaded and occupied half of Poland, part of Romania and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Also parts of Finland.

Lots of ifs there. what if Hitler had a heart attack and died in 1940. Would there still have been an invasion of Russia? i think not.
What if Hitler had not declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor? (because he did the allies decided on a Hitler first policy) The US public would have demanded Japan should be first and war in Europe be damned.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,480
3,591
126
Forgotten is the fact that Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were allies during the (almost) first 2years of the war. (Aug 1939 to June 1941) The Russians invaded and occupied half of Poland, part of Romania and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Also parts of Finland.

Lots of ifs there. what if Hitler had a heart attack and died in 1940. Would there still have been an invasion of Russia? i think not.
What if Hitler had not declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor? (because he did the allies decided on a Hitler first policy) The US public would have demanded Japan should be first and war in Europe be damned.
The Soviets and Nazis were not "Allies" by any stretch. They had a Non-Aggression Pact. That's a big difference.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Lots of possible for the want of a properly nailed horseshoe scenario arguments on this thread, the war could have been lost or won. But, isn't it grand boys, to not be bloody well dead.

It may be a self fulfilling prophesy to make any entity into our enemies, point granted, Stalin was a rascals, but now that even Russians agree that Stalin was a rascal, why must our snits be perpetual? Should I forever hate all Germans because Hitler was a German, should I hate forever all Jews because theeeey killed Christ, and agree that taint attaches to every single one or their Jewish descendants 2000 years later? But shit and hell fire, why not never forgive them Romans, who also had that important role in killing Christ? But since Roman empire are now demised into Italians, let us all discriminate against Marconi and his evil invention of wireless communications, turn off your radio, turn off your TV , and find Jesus.

And in the loving and Jesus died for our sins inspiring Christian message of human hope salvation and redemption, some of us can always somehow find the justification for perpetual hate if we just try hard enough.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
It may be a self fulfilling prophesy to make any entity into our enemies, point granted, Stalin was a rascals, but now that even Russians agree that Stalin was a rascal, why must our snits be perpetual? Should I forever hate all Germans because Hitler was a German, should I hate forever all Jews because theeeey killed Christ, and agree that taint attaches to every single one or their Jewish descendants 2000 years later?
This is stupid.

A) Stalin continues to be held in high regard in Russia. He continues to be romanticized by the media and general opinion polls show a positive view among the public.

B) Terrible analogies. Holding a countries legitimacy hostage based on historical events is only important if said country has failed to move on. Russia is still a rival of the USA and supports many of our enemies.

C) We occupied Germany for more than 10 years after WWII and then forcibly removed millions of ethnic Germans from their homeland as punishment for the war.

We occupied recently-nuked Japan even longer.

The reality is aggressors get occupied. These aggressors later became historic allies, but only after being pummeled to death.

Russia has never met the full military force of the USA nor has it surrendered to our military policy so it makes little sense to forgive past behaviors when the Russians can't even own up to them.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,480
3,591
126
Lots of possible for the want of a properly nailed horseshoe scenario arguments on this thread, the war could have been lost or won. But, isn't it grand boys, to not be bloody well dead.

It may be a self fulfilling prophesy to make any entity into our enemies, point granted, Stalin was a rascals, but now that even Russians agree that Stalin was a rascal, why must our snits be perpetual? Should I forever hate all Germans because Hitler was a German, should I hate forever all Jews because theeeey killed Christ, and agree that taint attaches to every single one or their Jewish descendants 2000 years later? But shit and hell fire, why not never forgive them Romans, who also had that important role in killing Christ? But since Roman empire are now demised into Italians, let us all discriminate against Marconi and his evil invention of wireless communications, turn off your radio, turn off your TV , and find Jesus.

And in the loving and Jesus died for our sins inspiring Christian message of human hope salvation and redemption, some of us can always somehow find the justification for perpetual hate if we just try hard enough.
:D

The Soviets contribution to WW2 has been understated for a long time. I can understand why, Stalin was quite evil and so was the Soviet Union, but Hitler was a worse evil, yet we quickly got over that. The reasons why we hold on to the clearly propaganda influenced WW2 views we do probably has too do with the length of the Cold War. A few Generations grew up with that threat hanging over their(our) heads.

Slowly, but surely a more accurate view is forming. It will still take more time before it is fully appreciated IMO.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,480
3,591
126
This is stupid.

A) Stalin continues to be held in high regard in Russia. He continues to be romanticized by the media and general opinion polls show a positive view among the public.

B) Terrible analogies. Holding a countries legitimacy hostage based on historical events is only important if said country has failed to move on. Russia is still a rival of the USA and supports many of our enemies.

C) We occupied Germany for more than 10 years after WWII and then forcibly removed millions of ethnic Germans from their homeland as punishment for the war.

We occupied recently-nuked Japan even longer.

The reality is aggressors get occupied. These aggressors later became historic allies, but only after being pummeled to death.

Russia has never met the full military force of the USA nor has it surrendered to our military policy so it makes little sense to forgive past behaviors when the Russians can't even own up to them.
The US and the Soviet Union never met Militarily either. The Cold War was a War of Ideology and Influence.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
The US and the Soviet Union never met Militarily either. The Cold War was a War of Ideology and Influence.
what?

the cold war was a real war.

post-1967 arab israeli, vietnam, korea, afghanistan, etc..

in some instances americans did face real russian soldiers, especially pilots in vietnam.

i know israelis fought against russian pilots in 1967 and 1973 wars.

But anyways, I never said US never directly fought Russia. In fact, that was presicely my point. LL overall thesis is we shouldn't hold a grudge against Russia because it behaved like an asshole 6 decades ago because we don't hold grudges against Germany, the Jews (lol!), etc.

I said Germany was conquered, occupied, and cleansed before it became an ally. Japan was firebombed and finally nuked before it became an ally.

russia hasn't received the right treatment yet
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,480
3,591
126
what?

the cold war was a real war.

post-1967 arab israeli, vietnam, korea, afghanistan, etc..

in some instances americans did face real russian soldiers, especially pilots in vietnam.

i know israelis fought against russian pilots in 1967 and 1973 wars.

But anyways, I never said US never directly fought Russia. In fact, that was presicely my point. LL overall thesis is we shouldn't hold a grudge against Russia because it behaved like an asshole 6 decades ago because we don't hold grudges against Germany, the Jews (lol!), etc.

I said Germany was conquered, occupied, and cleansed before it became an ally. Japan was firebombed and finally nuked before it became an ally.

russia hasn't received the right treatment yet
Incorrect. War by Proxy is not Direct War. The differences between Germany/Japan and the Soviet Union are massive.

The "right" treatment you are looking for will never happen.
 

DietDrThunder

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2001
2,262
326
126
We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no Air Force anymore, their gasoline and ammunition supplies are low. I've seen their miserable supply trains; mostly wagons draw by beaten up old horses or oxen. I'll say this; the Third Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don't ever forget them. Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives.

Leave it to me. In days I'll have us at war with them. . .and make it look like their fault!

General George S. Patton
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,480
3,591
126
We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no Air Force anymore, their gasoline and ammunition supplies are low. I've seen their miserable supply trains; mostly wagons draw by beaten up old horses or oxen. I'll say this; the Third Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don't ever forget them. Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives.

Leave it to me. In days I'll have us at war with them. . .and make it look like their fault!

General George S. Patton
Fail
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Without the bomb, Stalin might have tried something. Let us not forget that he invaded Poland and Finland unprovoked. Not that big of a leap that he might attack another European country after Germany was out of the way.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,480
3,591
126
Without the bomb, Stalin might have tried something. Let us not forget that he invaded Poland and Finland unprovoked. Not that big of a leap that he might attack another European country after Germany was out of the way.
I agree, was commenting on the bolded part and my Hindsight perspective of the World. At the time of the Quote he probably was right, but unforeseen circumstances have ways of changing everything. I'm not sure Cepak's motivation for posting that quote or whether he agrees with the bolded part or not, but certainly the bolded part has been proven False and thus my "Fail" post.
 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
0
0
Of all the allied nations in WW2, it can be argued that Russian ended up catching the most damage and civilian causalities. Something on the order of 50 million Russian died at German hands.
Most sources put it at about 25 million, 50-60 million for all combatants.

Certainly the mainly USA supplied convoys to Murmansk that partly saved the Russian goose from being cooked, but it was Churchill, who refused to share any US or British air power technology designs with Stalin or Russia, leaving Russia without any air power until long after WW2. But what really saved the Russian Butt was a US copied tank design, can't remember the exact T designation, maybe T-6, but when they came on line in significant numbers, in early 1944, it was game over Nazi's on the Eastern front.
The Russians most certainly had a significant air force even before the end of the war and did fairly well designing their own aircraft. They didn't need allied designs, plus the early planes the allies sent didn't prove very popular. What their air force lacked was a strategic arm, but during the war they had neither the need nor resources to create one - their immediate need was tactical, that's why the most produced military aircraft ever is the Il-2 Sturmovik.

As for the tank, the T-34 was not a copy of a US design, it merely used the Christie suspension (rejected by the US, accepted by the US and Britain). What made the T-34 so successful though was the Russian innovation of sloped armor, and for the time, a long, large-caliber gun. Significant numbers were being produced by mid-1943, but the T-34/85 of 1944 made it much more successful against the heavier German tanks.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS